Directionality of wire

Re the experience cited by Bigkidz, if I correctly interpret that the cable was used for a digital interconnection, it would not be at all surprising for the cable to exhibit directional properties in many systems, **even if** its conductors have no intrinsic directional properties whatsoever, and **even if** the cable is symmetrically designed at the two ends.

Digital audio signals have significant frequency components extending up to several tens of millions of Hz, and even higher in some cases, that are associated with the very fast transition times between their two voltage states (i.e., the "risetimes" and "falltimes" of the signals). At those frequencies even minor differences in how the connectors are soldered at the two ends, as well as other tiny mechanical asymmetries, can affect signal reflections that occur at RF frequencies as a result of less than perfect matches of "characteristic impedance" between the components, the connectors on the components and on the cable, and the cable itself. And at RF frequencies impedance matches are never 100% perfect. Signal reflections will in turn combine with and affect the characteristics and quality of the original signal waveform. Which in turn may affect timing jitter at the point of D/A conversion, depending on many component and cable-dependent variables, including the arrival times at the DAC of reflections and re-reflections. Which in turn may vary depending on the degree to which the impedance match at each of the cable is less than perfect, and therefore on which end of the cable is connected to which component. The length of the cable, the propagation velocity of the particular cable, and the jitter rejection capability (if any) of the particular DAC are among other variables that factor into all of this, BTW.

Not to mention that the Adcom cable that was referred to may not have had a well controlled 75 ohm characteristic impedance to begin with, which would certainly affect susceptibility to reflection effects.

Put simply, if the cable was used for a digital interconnection the cited experience says nothing about wire directionality.

Regards,
-- Al

Stfoth, for what it's worth I spent a bit more than three decades designing and managing design of high tech electronics for use in military aircraft, and in my experience the issue of wire directionality was never even mentioned, much less addressed in some manner.

Regards,
-- Al

Koestner, you raise very logical questions. And as usual, the responses and citations provided by Jim (Jea48) are correct. The key to reconciling his comments and yours is that while AC current of course alternates direction, the transfer of energy that is intimately associated with that current is in one direction, from the source of that energy to whatever load it is connected to.

(In saying this, though, I’m putting aside reflection effects that occur at high frequencies, as I described earlier in relation to a digital cable. To at least a small degree reflection effects do in fact cause energy to be transferred in both directions, and to at least a small degree cause energy to be absorbed by the source of that energy, as well as by the load. And I’m also putting aside the fact that to the extent a load is capacitive or inductive, as opposed to being purely resistive, it cannot consume energy, although it can store it).

Regarding the underlying question, IMO the Audioquest statement on directionality Jim cited earlier amounts to the least implausible explanation of intrinsic wire directionality I have seen. It should be understood, though, that by its nature the noise effects that are referred to in that explanation will be highly system dependent and even location dependent. And as with many effects involving noise, it will not have much if any predictability. Also, as with many other explanations that are proferred for controversial audio effects, a basic problem is that this explanation doesn’t lend itself to being analyzed in a quantitative manner, that would provide a perspective on whether it does or does not have a reasonable possibility of being audibly significant in some or many systems. With further complication being added by the fact that it is extremely easy in audio to attribute perceived effects to the wrong variable, as illustrated by the example of a digital cable that I discussed earlier, and as illustrated more extensively in the recent thread on fuse directionality.

When it is not possible or practical to obtain a quantitative perspective on explanations that may be offered for a claimed effect, there is virtually no limit to the explanations that can be conjured up and asserted, rightly or wrongly.

In saying all of this, btw, I take no position on the possibility that wire may be intrinsically directional in some systems, to at least a small degree. (And I’m referring here to wire as used in cables, as opposed to the vastly shorter lengths that are used in fuses, whose alleged intrinsic directionality would be swamped by whatever directionality the vastly longer associated wiring may have). But personally I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. And contrary to one of the comments Geoff made earlier, I certainly wouldn’t avoid the use of balanced cables on the basis of this possibility.

Regards,
-- Al

Hi Jim (Jea48),

As I’m sure you realize, both the fast moving energy and the slow moving current (defined as electron movement) are amplified by a power amplifier. And while it is the energy that propagates at near light speed that is responsible for what is heard, in the case of electrical signals that are being conducted through wires the near light speed propagation of that energy (in essentially one direction) and the very slow back and forth movement of individual electrons are intimately related, and neither would exist without the other.

Best regards,
-- Al

Geoff, the gentleman asked a question, and I responded by stating a fact. It was neither an appeal to authority nor a statement that involved logic, fallacious or otherwise.

Regards,
-- Al

Stfoth 8-2-2017
Perhaps this has been adequately and succinctly discussed elsewhere, but, assuming all cables are inherently directional with sound differences from one way to the other, what might be some reasons someone, with a good trained ear with a highly resolving setup and with no skin in the game, wouldn’t be able to hear a difference?

If we assume as your question posits that all cables are inherently directional, IMO the key to obtaining an answer would be obtaining an understanding of **why** such an effect may occur.  And as I said in an earlier post, IMO the least implausible explanation I have seen is the one stated by Audioquest.

I doubt that any of us are in a position to say conclusively one way or the other whether the effect claimed by Audioquest is likely to be great enough in degree to be audibly significant in some or many systems.  But let's assume that it is.  The explanation revolves around electrical noise.  Sensitivity to electrical noise that may be present will be highly dependent on the specific designs of the components, cables, and system that are involved, on how AC power is distributed to the various components, on how the components and cables are physically arranged, and on the noise environment at the particular location.  And it will be highly dependent on the spectral composition (frequency distribution) as well as the amplitudes of whatever noise may be present.

As I said in one of my previous posts in this thread, noise effects tend to have little if any predictability, and tend to be highly system and even location dependent.

It should be noted, finally, that none of these factors have any particular correlation with the sonic quality or musical resolution of the system, or with the hearing acuity of the particular listener.

Regards,
-- Al
    

Stfoth, you’ve raised a number of excellent and sincere questions during the course of this thread. Regarding your most recent question...

Are the believers trying the fuses or wire switching at multiple times, trying to verify that the perceived result wasn’t due to one of the variables and trying to make sure the result is repeatable? As much as a skeptic might not even try it, might some believers not make the effort before advocating?

... you may find the following excerpts from posts I’ve made in the recent thread on fuse directionality to be of interest:

Almarg 7-8-2017
See the first of my posts dated 10-28-2016 in the long running "Synergistic Red Fuse" thread, in which I quote posts that have been made here by Ralph [Atmasphere] and several other designers of well regarded audio electronics on the subject of fuse directionality. I quoted Ralph’s comment (which had originally appeared in another fuse-related thread) as follows:

Ralph Karsten of Atma-Sphere:

… Fuses are inherently incapable of having directionality in any way whatsoever.

… I joined this thread recently with some results on testing. Those results are that the directionality appears out of coincidence and that actually greater improvement can be had by rotating the fuse in the holder for best contact…. Reversal is improving the contact area because fuse and holder are not dimensionally perfect and the fuse might sit better in the holder in one direction. By rotating the fuse in the holder without reversing it gets the same effect only more profoundly.

Also, in the numerous fuse-related threads that have appeared here over the years I can recall exactly two members who have reported experimenting with fuse rotation: Ralph, and a member named SGordon1, who posted in the Red Fuse thread on 5-3-2016 about having done that. Both gentlemen reported that significant differences resulted.

Also, as far as I can recall none of the many people who have reported hearing differences as a result of reversing the direction of a fuse have ever indicated that they went back and forth between the two directions multiple times, reinserting the fuse each time with randomly varying rotational orientation, to verify that their results were repeatable and that they were unrelated to rotational orientation.

Now, does it seem unlikely that rotating a fuse in its holder would have a reasonable likelihood of making an audibly significant difference? In the absence of empirical evidence, such as Ralph has provided, my technically-based instinct would be to consider it as being unlikely although possible. However, I would think it to be vastly more unlikely, and in fact impossible, for a fuse to have **inherent** directional characteristics, to an audibly significant degree. And as I mentioned, several other designers of respected audio electronics whom I quoted in the post I referred to above agree with me.

And also this comment in that thread:

Almarg 7-10-2017
However, the problem is that establishing that changing the direction of a fuse makes a difference does not establish that a fuse is inherently directional, as many seem to automatically assume. One does not necessarily follow from the other, especially given Ralph’s empirical findings that I cited above (which he reported to be both measurable and audible), and also given that in the opinion of many of those having an extensive background in electronic design there is no means by which that is possible. As I put it in my post in the Synergistic Red Fuse thread that I referred to earlier:

[Inherent directionality in fuses] is fundamentally irreconcilable with any reasonable understanding of how electronic circuits work. Which is not to say, of course, that an understanding of how electronic circuits work can explain or predict everything about what we hear or don’t hear from our systems. It certainly can’t. But it can often help to provide a perspective on what does or does not have a reasonable possibility of being audibly significant.... And again, none of this is to say that I doubt the accuracy of most of the reported perceptions, it just means that in cases where those perceptions are accurate I believe that the cause was something else.

When the direction of a fuse is reversed all of the following variables, or at least potential variables, are being changed simultaneously:

1)Contact area.
2)Contact pressure.
3)Contact resistance.
4)Oxidation between the mating surfaces.
5)Warm-up state of the equipment.
6)Contents of "volatile" digital memory elements that may be present in the design (i.e., memory elements that don’t retain information when power is removed).
7)The states of other circuitry that may undergo re-initialization at turn-on.
8)Probably other variables that I haven’t thought of.
9)The direction of the element in the fuse.

In order to conclude and legitimately be able to claim that no. 9 is responsible for the difference that is heard, given especially what I and four different experienced designers of well regarded audio electronics have said in posts here which **strongly** point away from that possibility (again, see my post dated 10-28-2016 in the Synergistic Red Fuse thread), at the very least it is necessary to reverse and re-reverse the fuse multiple times, reinserting it each time with varying rotational orientation. To verify that the perceived difference is repeatable, and that it is not due to the phenomenon Ralph has reported, or to other variables.

And as I and Davehrab both said earlier, it appears that no one posting in any of the various fuse-related threads here who has claimed to have found that fuses are directional has done that. Which is understandable, given that significant time and effort would be required to do so with reasonable thoroughness. What is not understandable, though, to me at least, is failure to recognize that any of the other variables I listed may be responsible.

Note, however, that for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread I for one do not totally rule out the possibility of wires (as used in cables) being intrinsically directional in **some** applications, to at least a small degree.  In contrast to my opinion about fuses.

Best regards,
-- Al

That’s preposterous. Why on Earth would you believe cables can be directional but not fuses?

Because as I’ve said numerous times in numerous fuse-related threads in which you’ve participated:

If Geoff’s comments about all wires being significantly directional are to be believed, then these differences [referring to the almost infinitesimal direction-related differences in fuse resistance that are reported in the HiFi Tuning paper which you continue to cite] would be totally swamped by BOTH the resistances and the alleged direction-related resistance differences of the vastly longer associated wiring. In the case of mains fuses, that would include the power transformer and the power wiring in the component, as well as the power cord and the AC wiring in and outside of the house.

Those having an understanding of how resistances or other electrical quantities that are in series combine, as well as an understanding of the fact that most cable parameters and cable effects are proportional to length, will understand that. Or, more precisely, **almost** all of them will. There are always a few outliers, as you would say.

You may disagree, and for that matter I’d expect that you will find some way to disagree. But I wouldn’t be so quick to characterize my contention as "preposterous."

Regards,
-- Al

In the case of an electrical signal (or AC power) that is being conducted via wires the energy is conveyed in the form of an electromagnetic wave, which travels outside the conductor itself. That wave propagates at a substantial fraction (generally somewhere between 50% to 98%) of the speed of light in a vacuum. The exact speed depends primarily on the "dielectric constant" of the particular insulation.

Any electromagnetic wave can be considered to be comprised of photons, although the term photons is most commonly associated with a particular kind of electromagnetic wave, namely light.

As I indicated in an earlier post in this thread, in the case of an electrical signal that is being conducted via wires the near light speed propagation of that electromagnetic wave is intimately related to movement of electrons within the conductor, even though that electron movement occurs at a **vastly** slower speed.

Sfroyen’s comment that "the energy flow takes place in the dielectric surrounding the conductors -- including the surrounding air" is absolutely correct. Photons do not travel within metallic conductors, electrons do. Ralph (Atmasphere) has made the same point, btw, in prior threads here that have involved similar controversies.

Regards,
-- Al

Geoffkait 8-5-2017
as I already said the skin effect is simply that higher frequencies travel nearer to the outer surface of the conductor. And those frequencies are very high. Obviously, by inference, the lower the frequency the closer to the center of the conductor it will travel. How does that comport with the electromagnetic wave - the audio signal - traveling outside the conductor as you claim? Hint: it doesn’t.

Actually, it does. See below.

Geoffkait 8-6-2017
Furthermore, take the case of the humble fuse in the amp where the power cord enters the amp. The fuse wire is designed to melt at a given temperature based on excessive current. That melting is produced by thermal energy of the current, no? The current must be traveling inside the wire per se, if the current energy were traveling outside the wire it would be dissipated into the surrounding air and structure of the fuse and beyond. So the whole idea of "energy" traveling outside the wire is pretty preposterous.

In the case of electrical signals (or AC power) that is being conducted via wires, "the current" consists of the movement of charge under the influence of an applied electric field (i.e., a voltage), and the carriers of that charge are electrons.

As we all agree the movement of individual electrons (the "drift velocity") is extremely slow. However as the electromagnetic wave propagates along a cable, at near light-speed, **different** electrons are caused to be in motion at different points. The very slow electron movement near the receiving end of the cable will be similar to the very slow electron movement near the sending end of the cable, except that its response to a voltage applied at the sending end will be delayed corresponding to the amount of time it takes the electromagnetic wave to propagate (at near light-speed) across the corresponding length.

The net movement of electrons at any given point along the cable will be in a direction corresponding to the +/- polarity of the signal at any given instant, at that given point. And the number of moving electrons will be proportional to the amount of current, and in fact is what constitutes "the current," which if excessive will blow a fuse that may be present. For example, one ampere of "current" is defined as the movement of one coulomb per second across any given cross-section of a conductor, and one coulomb corresponds to the charge of approximately 6.2 × 10^18 electrons.

Skin effect results in the moving charge carriers (electrons in this case) being distributed in a non-uniform manner within a cross-section of each of the two conductors. Such that the percentage of the total current that is conducted at a given depth within that cross section decreases with increasing depth. With the effect becoming greater as frequency increases, of course. The result, in effect, is an increase in overall resistance, which is very slight in the upper-most part of the audible frequency range, and becomes proportionately greater at higher frequencies.

Geoffkait 8-5-2017
But seriously, we already know the velocity of photons traveling through copper conductors (circa 70% speed of light in vacuum) and it’s consistent with the photons traveling through the metal conductor itself, NOT through the dielectric and NOT through air, which would be a much higher percentage of the speed of light in a vacuum, no? It’s the same situation for audio over copper wires in telephony, too. The velocity over copper wires in the telephone system is consistent with the signal traveling through copper itself. Electrons? They hardly move at all so we can ignore them.

The bottom line as I see it, based in part on the last sentence of your paragraph that I quoted just above, is that I suspect the underlying flaw in your reasoning, which leads you to conclude that the energy of an audio or other electrical signal is carried by photons travelling within a wire, is a misconception of how the near light-speed propagation of an electromagnetic wave and the very slow movement of charge carriers (i.e., electrons) within a conductor are interrelated. Again, slow moving electrons are "the current," and although as you’ve said the very fast moving electromagnetic wave can be considered to be "the signal," the two go hand in hand.

If you can find a seemingly credible reference which explicitly indicates that the energy of an electrical signal conducted via wires is carried within the conductors by photons, I will attempt to explain why it is either incorrect or is being misinterpreted.

Regards,
-- Al

Thanks, Herman, for your characteristically excellent input, which like many posts you have made in the past commands a great deal of respect in my book.

To be sure it’s clear, the statement that is quoted near the beginning of your post was made by Geoff. The reference to me which appears just above the quote might give some a different impression. And of course I agree that the quoted statement is incorrect.

Best regards,
-- Al

While I would certainly agree with George that this thread is not lacking in the substance to which his last post refers, one way in which the thread can provide at least a modicum of value is that it may help those reading it to better calibrate (i.e., to assess) the responses its various participants may provide in other threads, on other subjects.

When seeking information on the Internet, in trying to distinguish between the wheat and the abundant chaff it is inevitably surrounded with it can often be useful to have some perspective on the author of what is being read.

Regards,
-- Al
 

Geoffkait 8-13-2017
Even if one wishes to refer to current as the "signal," since current is alternating we only need to worry about the current (signal) when it’s traveling toward the component or, in the case of speaker cables, when the current is traveling toward the speakers. The other half of the time, when the current is traveling in the opposite direction, we can ignore the "signal" since its effects are inaudible.

When "the current" is traveling away from the component in one of the two conductors it is traveling toward the component in the other of the two conductors.

And it is **always** traveling through the input circuit of the component in one direction or the other, aside from the brief instant during each cycle at which the applied voltage crosses zero, and the direction changes.

I would not press this explanation as being supportive of wire (or fuse) directionality.

Regards,
-- Al

Jea48 8-16-2017
herman, and or Al, (almarg) any thoughts?

Jim (Jea48), thanks for providing the references, and the hypothesis about the possibility of the dielectric having directional properties to some degree, the dielectric being the medium through which the energy of an audio signal is transmitted.

My only thoughts about that hypothesis are general in nature. I note that one of the basic themes in the Cardas writeup on breakin seems to be that breakin involves change from a more uneven state of distribution of stored charge toward a more even state of distribution (as well as a reduction in stored charge). That would seem to me to imply that if anything a cable that is well broken in would be less likely, rather than more likely, to exhibit directional properties, if in fact the hypothesis is correct.

On the other hand, though, one doesn’t have to look far for examples of non-conducting materials that transmit certain forms of electromagnetic energy better in one direction than the other. Blacked out windows on automobiles, for example. And in the realm of electronics, there are of course devices based on semiconductors, namely diodes, that operate by having very low resistance in one direction and very high resistance in the other direction. Although in that case a junction between two different kinds of semiconductors is involved.

Even if the hypothesized phenomenon were to exist to some degree in the case of audio signal transmission, however, as with many explanations that are asserted in marketing literature and elsewhere for audio-related products and tweaks a fundamental problem is that the hypothesis does not lend itself to being analyzed (or measured) in a **quantitative** manner. And as I’ve said in various threads here, in the absence of any sort of quantitative perspective on a claimed explanation, whether or not it has a reasonable possibility of being great enough in degree to be audibly significant is unlikely to be either provable or disprovable with any conclusiveness. That, together with the ease with which extraneous variables can be overlooked when it comes to ascribing a cause to subtle sonic effects that may be perceived, are IMO major reasons why we see so many arguments about such things.

Best regards,
-- Al

P.S: To Analogluvr, thanks very much for the nice words you posted here a few days ago.

Jim, re your question about Sean's post that you quoted, I looked at all of his posts in that thread, and many of those provided in it by others.  As you alluded to, no specifics were presented, and so I have no idea as to what sort of "curious phenomena" he may have been referring to.

About all I can say about his post is that he should have said "phenomenon," not "phenomena."  :-)

Best regards,
-- Al
 

Quoted from AA:
If you run the signal and return wires in the same direction you will end up with hot spots in the stage, normally at or close to the speakers, low image height and have a gaping hole in the middle of the stage...Keep in mind I am referring to the sound of the stage (reflections) not the individual instruments spread across the stage....Interconnects or speaker wires that have pianos wandering all over the stage normally have their signal and return going in the same direction....

On the other hand, though, if the signal and return wires are run in opposite directions (relative to what came off of the spool), then if the cable is constructed in a symmetrical manner (i.e., both conductors identical, and not having a shield grounded at just one end), then reversing the direction of the cable should make no difference **even if** the conductors are intrinsically directional. Unless, that is, the dielectric (as opposed to the conductors) somehow causes a difference.

If the two conductors in a symmetrically designed cable are run in opposite directions (relative to what came off of the spool), then no matter which way the cable is connected the two conductors will **both** always be in the allegedly "correct" direction for half of each cycle, and the allegedly "incorrect" direction for the other half of each cycle. That follows from what I said in an earlier post in this thread:

Almarg 8-14-2017
When "the current" is traveling away from the component in one of the two conductors it is traveling toward the component in the other of the two conductors.

And it is **always** traveling through the input circuit of the component in one direction or the other, aside from the brief instant during each cycle at which the applied voltage crosses zero, and the direction changes.

(To add context, I had put quotation marks around "the current" to distinguish it from the electromagnetic energy of "the signal," that is conducted via the dielectric).

So the AA member’s statement seems to me to be self-contradictory. He’s saying that wires are directional, but putting the two wires in directions that would allow the cable to exhibit their alleged directionality will produce bad results.

Best regards,
-- Al

Jea48 8-18-2017
Rereading Bob’s post he says solid core wire is extremely directional. He is speaking of the wire itself. His comments in his post are about running the direction of the hot/signal and ground/return in opposite directions, as you well noted. Bob really doesn’t say, I don’t believe, the final product build of the two wires, interconnect, is directional though. In fact the thread is about the construction/building of the interconnect and running the two conductors in opposite directions.

Yes, I see that now, Jim. He does not say, at least in that thread, that cables are directional; he is just addressing the wire itself. Yet it is also true, as we are saying, that the cable configuration he recommends would negate the intrinsic directionality he is attributing to the wire itself.

As for the "why" of whatever intrinsic directionality wire may possess, I note that even he says "I don’t want to speculate why wire is directional." Although he also says that "it appears to be an FM distortion." FM distortion, phase distortion, and timing jitter are inter-related concepts. And as you alluded to, and I indicated earlier in the thread, timing jitter resulting from VSWR (reflection) effects figures to be the basis of directionality in digital cables. But I have no idea how at analog audio frequencies a symmetrically designed cable might introduce differing amounts of FM or phase distortion depending on which way it is connected.

Best regards,
-- Al

Geoffkait 8-19-2017
Huh? Not sure what you guys are arguing about.

Jim and I are not arguing, Geoff.  We're having what I would consider to be an intelligent discussion of sincere and intelligent questions.  That despite the fact that our opinions on the matter do not particularly coincide.

Almarg 8-18-2017
Yet it is also true, as we are saying, that the cable configuration he recommends would negate the intrinsic directionality he is attributing to the wire itself.

Jea48 8-18-2017
But do we really know that?

It seems to me that it is a necessary consequence of what I stated earlier:

Almarg 8-18-2017
If the two conductors in a symmetrically designed cable are run in opposite directions (relative to what came off of the spool), then no matter which way the cable is connected the two conductors will **both** always be in the allegedly "correct" direction for half of each cycle, and the allegedly "incorrect" direction for the other half of each cycle. That follows from what I said in an earlier post in this thread:

Almarg 8-14-2017
When "the current" is traveling away from the component in one of the two conductors it is traveling toward the component in the other of the two conductors.

And it is **always** traveling through the input circuit of the component in one direction or the other, aside from the brief instant during each cycle at which the applied voltage crosses zero, and the direction changes.

(To add context, I had put quotation marks around "the current" to distinguish it from the electromagnetic energy of "the signal," that being conducted via the dielectric).

It would be a different story, as Geoff indicated, if the cable were constructed with both conductors in the same direction.  In that situation, **if** the conductors are in fact intrinsically directional to an audibly significant degree, in a given application, then reversing the cable would make a difference.

Jea48 8-19-2017
Al,
Question.
Does the hot/signal conductor, of an IC, hold any more importance carrying the audio signal from the source to the load than the ground/return conductor?
If yes please explain.
If not please explain.

I would put it that in the case of an unbalanced line-level analog interconnect the hot/signal conductor may actually be **less** important than the ground/return conductor.  For a couple of reasons:

(a)The resistance, inductance, perhaps skin effect, and perhaps other characteristics of the ground/return conductor may affect the amplitude and spectral characteristics of ground loop-related high frequency noise and/or low frequency hum.

(b)Those characteristics of the ground/return conductor may also affect the extent to which a small fraction of the current in the hot/signal conductor may follow a return path other than that ground/return conductor.  Such as the AC power wiring (as in a ground loop), or possibly even the ground/return conductor of the cable for the other channel. 

However, while those two factors can certainly be expected to have sonic consequences in some applications, and while they can create slight inequalities in the current being conducted in the two wires, I'm not sure how or if they might have a relation to directionality.

Best regards,
-- Al
  

Geoff is actually a magnanimous and beneficent soul. Not infrequently he suggests tweaks that would cost the user nothing, and that provide him with no monetary return. An example is the following excerpt from his post dated 9-7-2012 in this thread:

Taking all telephone books out of the house will usually be audible when you go back and listen to the system. Even if the telephone books are in other rooms of the house, they should be removed. The telephone book is perceived as an intruder by virtue of the fact that it is linked to a strong Field created by the tens or hundreds of thousands of identical telephone books. So, the link to that field can be eliminated by removing the telephone books from the house, making the house Safe from the telephone book "information field".

Regards,
-- Al :-)